Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

| Post date: 2018/02/4 |

Publication and Authorship

At least two international reviewers, who are expert in the given area of research, conduct strict peer review and screen the scientific quality of submissions. Associate Editors and Editor in Chief are in charge of selecting these reviewers. It is also possible for the authors to recommend reviewers for some journals and article types.

· The journal takes a number of criteria into consideration, including relevance, originality, readability, statistical validity, and language.

· The reviews will result in one of the following decisions, i.e. acceptance, minor revisions, major revision, or rejection.

· The authors must know that the revisions and resubmitted submissions may not necessarily guarantee the acceptance of the revised version.

· There will be no further re-review for rejected papers.

· The acceptance of submissions is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

· Each research can be published only once, whether within the same journal or in another journal.

Authorship

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for Conducting, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (ICMJE Recommendations 2013) recommends that authorship should be based on the following four criteria:

1. The authors must have substantial involvement in the conception or design of the work; or they should be fundamentally involved in the process of acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.

2. The authors must have substantial contribution to drafting the work or to its required critical revision as a result of important intellectual content.

3. The authors must be involved in approval of the final version that is going to be published.

4. The authors must have consensus about being responsible for all the aspects of the work. Hence, they would be able to justify the questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work.

Authors' Responsibilities

· The authors are required to ensure that the submitted work is their original research.

· The authors are required to ensure that their submitted work has not been published elsewhere. Moreover, they must certify that their submitted work is not under review in another journal.

· The authors are required to follow the comments provided in the peer review process.

· The authors are required to make retractions or correction as necessary.

· All authors of the submitted work must be fundamentally involved in the research. The range of their involvement must be specified under the “Authors’ Contributions” section.

· The authors are required to be able to claim that all the presented data are real and authentic.

· Any conflict of interest must be informed to the Editors of the journal.

· The authors must be able to determine all the sources cited in the body of the paper.

· In case the authors notice any error in the published article, they must inform the Editors.

· In case the authors notice any error in the published article, they must inform the Editors.

· Authors must not use irrelevant sources.

· The authors must know that if they decide to withdraw their paper within the review process, they are subject to any penalty stipulated by the publisher.

Peer Review/Responsibility for the Reviewers

· The reviewers are required to preserve the confidentiality of all the information, regarding the content of the papers and consider them as privileged information.

· The reviewers are required to guarantee full objectivity, with no bias or privilege given to the author, i.e. the reviewers’ personal knowledge of the author(s) must not be effective in providing comments and making decisions.

· The reviewers’ point of view must be stated clearly along with constructive arguments in 500-1000 words.

· The reviewers may find relevant published works, which are not specified by the authors.

· If the reviewers have any knowledge with regard to any similarity or overlap between the paper under review and other papers, they are required to notify the Editor in Chief.

· When potential conflict of interests arises between the reviewers and any of the authors, companies, agencies, or institutions connected to the papers, the reviewers should not review the paper.

Editorial Responsibilities

· The Editors (Associate Editors or Editor in Chief) reserve the right to accept/reject a submitted manuscript.

· The contents and overall quality of the publication is under constant surveillance of the editors.

· In enhancing the publication’s quality, the Editors prioritize the needs of authors and readers.

· The Editors are in charge of ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of academic productions.

· The Editors must consider that, when necessary, an erratum should be published containing the revisions.

· The Editors should be provided with a clear image of the funding sources of the research.

· The main concentration of Editors must solely circle around the papers' importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication's scope.

· The editors cannot reverse their decision without reasonable explanations, nor can they overturn the decisions made by previous editors unless they have legitimate reasons.

· The Editors should be concerned with maintaining the anonymity of reviewers (in half blind peer review journals).

· The editors must guarantee that all of their published manuscripts are in line with the international accepted ethical guidelines.

· The Editors’ acceptance of a paper should be finalized when they are reasonably certain.

· When the Editors suspect any misconduct, they should take action, regardless of the paper’s having been published or unpublished. Consequently, they must make all efforts in resolving the problem.

· The editors must consider that suspicions do not justify rejection of papers; hence, they should have proof of misconduct.

· The editors must not permit any conflict of interests between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.

· After submitting a decision, the editors must not withdraw their decision (especially after rejection or acceptance) unless they have reasonable causes.

Publishing Ethics Issues

· COPE rules must be followed and approved by all editorial members, reviewers, and authors.

· Corresponding author, as the point of contact for queries, can withdraw the article when it is incomplete (before entering the review process or upon revision requirements).

· No fundamental changes can be made by authors after acceptance without a serious reason.

· The editorial members and authors must publish corrections honestly and completely.

· Any notes of plagiarism, fraudulent data or any other kinds of fraud must be reported completely to COPE.

Ethical Guidelines:

· Under the materials and methods’ section, ethical considerations must be discussed.

· Please make sure that all human adult subjects and the parents or legal guardians of minors provided informed consent prior to participation.

· The name of the appropriate institutional review board, that approved the project, should be included.

· It should be confirmed that maintenance and care of experimental animals complies with national Institutes of health guidelines for the humane use of laboratory animals, or those of your Institute or agency.

Conflicts of Interest:

· Any sources of funding and potential conflicting interest must be acknowledged and declared. The authors must clarify issues such as receiving funds or fees by, or holding stocks and shares in, an organization that may profit or lose through publication of your paper.

· Declaration of competing interests will not lead to immediate rejection of the paper, but the Editors must be informed in advance.

Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Available here.